http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlXsxn4ZzASIzr.boSO8qQshBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20130119044115AAy4IAp
How does USA hold & torture people at Guantánamo Bay detention camp using Geneva convention?
This question relates to the comment of [Nicholas] at ( http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130116033316AAtYrhU )
"... The detention of terrorists at Gitmo is subject to the Geneva convention, but the convention defines these people as partisans. Partisans have no legal protection as prisoners of war under the convention's articles. ..."
Following is the 12 August 1949 Fourth Geneva convention (relative to Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War), in which U.S. has signed and ratified.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument
The term 'partisan' is not mentioned there.
Commentaries for PARAGRAPH 4. -- PERSONS PROTECTED BY OTHER CONVENTIONS:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument
"... There are certain cases about which some hesitation may be felt. We may mention, first, the case of partisans, to which Article 4, A (2) Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article', of the Third Convention refers. ... "
How does U.S. qualify those people with flesh & blood as 'Partisan' status?
"... The detention of terrorists at Gitmo is subject to the Geneva convention, but the convention defines these people as partisans. Partisans have no legal protection as prisoners of war under the convention's articles. ..."
Following is the 12 August 1949 Fourth Geneva convention (relative to Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War), in which U.S. has signed and ratified.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument
The term 'partisan' is not mentioned there.
Commentaries for PARAGRAPH 4. -- PERSONS PROTECTED BY OTHER CONVENTIONS:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument
"... There are certain cases about which some hesitation may be felt. We may mention, first, the case of partisans, to which Article 4, A (2) Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article', of the Third Convention refers. ... "
How does U.S. qualify those people with flesh & blood as 'Partisan' status?
Additional Details
@Cephalopod,
USA defined term "non combatants" does not override and/or avoid the Geneva Convention terms/ definitions. Simply, the acts of USA shall be judged under the Geneva Convention (agreed superior universal code).
What are the difficulties for implementation? Any attempts?
USA defined term "non combatants" does not override and/or avoid the Geneva Convention terms/ definitions. Simply, the acts of USA shall be judged under the Geneva Convention (agreed superior universal code).
What are the difficulties for implementation? Any attempts?
@Kit Fang,
Capture, detain and torture of any individual are conflicts initiated by USA and evidences are obvious.
Can you prove your comment?
Is there any way to defend innocent people (outside of any conflict), when fictional states harm them?
Capture, detain and torture of any individual are conflicts initiated by USA and evidences are obvious.
Can you prove your comment?
Is there any way to defend innocent people (outside of any conflict), when fictional states harm them?
@Cephalopod,
If constitutionally defined USA fiction can implement jail institutions outside the lands of America (including by lease agreements), is the constitution fraudulent to fail to judge those acts under the said constitution?
How can acts disrespecting human values be immune to be judged under universal codes, and specially by the master 'people' with sovereign rights? There is definite fault here.
People with flesh & blood always is superior and has jurisdiction over a fictional state defined on a piece of paper.
@Jeff,
Can you prove your statement that US government is above the Geneva convention and the rights of ordinary humans?
Answer:
No comments:
Post a Comment